Talking Politics

[RemoteTiger]

I agree with Liverpool on this one! With proviso's

I believe the dole bludgers are no where near the number the media makes out. But there are dole bludgers!

But I also feel that from my own experiences of employing young men and women that the education system and their parents have let them down to a significant degree. IMO they lack initiative (the ability to make a decision without guidance), drive (the willingness to get involved) and are simply scared to show their true talents. For this reason I have implemented a mentor system at work where a young employee is matched with an older seasoned employee who does not work in his team and has no line of reporting to him by the young employee - the mentor is there to listen to the young persons issues, problems and ask the questions that allow the young employee to work out his/her own answers. It has paid off in bucket loads.

Why has the education system let them down - it comes back to IMO the lack of self discipline the young person has - there seems to have been little or no pressure placed upon them to perform to the very best - all the curriculum and teaches appear to be aiming at is get the kids through the HSC and off to Uni - nothing about enhancing the kids natural ability. Is that the teaches fault - no its the bloody systems fault!

Why have mums and dads let them down - because both are working long hours and are not providing the time that we need to give kids at impressionable ages. Its not mum and dads fault - they have got to give the kid a decent lifestyle too and that costs money - vast sums of money these days! 

So this military for 1 year idea has merit - for it will teach the kids discipline and if they can transpose that to self discipline then they will go far further in life than being scared to show off their natural talents - and - it is my experience  the young men and women of today have many talents. Again I have a proviso - these "military kids" are not a resource poole to be used and shipped off to any theatre of war in which our trigger happy PM wants Australia to participate.

As you have probably gathered I am not a big fan of John Howard - I find him to be a leader of little moral fortitude - but he tries to put on a face that he has high moral values - he has taken Australia backwards in many areas and forwards in only a few.

But this military for 1 year has merit......My opinion only.....cheers RT

 

[Chelsea]

Eight Ace.. I asked you.....So, what your saying is that the young blokes called up for National Service... with some ultimately being sent to Vietnam were 'half-wits, delinquents and the barely adequate'?

Eightace.. the above is what I ASKED you...with a ?...... if that is what you meant?

And this was your reply. "Chelsea, you are completely unqualified to tell me what I'm saying.
I wasn't trying to tell you anything.... just asking if that is what you meant? Simple as that.Why do you try and twist things around?
Also, as I've said before... you don't know me, or what qualifications I may, or may not have, so let's leave it at that. I will go as far as to say though, as you seem to have some 'thing' about the R.A.AF. maybe you do about the Navy too. The Navy has been part of my life. I guess you've heard the saying "the Navy gets the gravy and the Arny gets the beans, beans, beans beans"...

 

[Rayzorwire]

Poppa X Avoidance Retired Hurt 0 (1)
John G Howhard Not Out 0 (1284)
Peter Abott & Costello Not Out 0 (0)

Total 0
(Imaginary Score) 0 For 4092 (innumerable number of fours and sixes hit in dreams)


Match Report: When offered the opportunity to learn, sound-byte Conservative batsmen invariably prefer to cling to ill-formed opinion and dwell in ignorance. Why try to score runs in reality on the field of play when you could be sitting in the dressing room, all padded up for effect, munching pork rinds, sipping Coke and daydreaming about hitting sixes?

Odds for next match:

Norfolk Island Debating Society: 1/50
Howhard/Abbott/Costello/Poppa Coalition: 4000/1

Rayzor
Fantastic Summary of the future of power for Australia

For some reason I really like the topic of energy and the creation of power.
However having no real expertise, training or semblance of a scientific brain sifting the available information is difficult

Far too often the discussions gets hijacked by vested interests.
Australia has a heap of ore, sell it and we make money, very, very easily
Refine the ore and we make even more money
Invest in alternative sources of energy - its all too hard, cost too much.

Question
Know anything about methanol as a replacement for petrol?
any good?
Oil companies own all the distribution for petrol, therefore it aint gunna happen?

Agreed Michael, the 'debate' is often hijacked by vested interests. Just as a small isolated example, when evaluating the nuclear industry, it's worth remembering the lies they once told about nuclear power stations. When they were first introduced, the industry claimed it would be such a cheap technology for consumers that decades down the track they wouldnt have to bother charging consumers for electricity - the cost would be so low that it wouldn't be worth having meters or meter readers.

Regarding your question on methanol replacing petrol, the short answer is that it's impossible due to scale. Methane is actually a more damaging 'greenhouse gas' than CO2, but we don't produce it in anywhere near the amount necessary for it to replace more than a tiny fraction of petrol use. There is existing technology to convert virtually all forms of garbage for methane/methanol production, but even still, it would only replace a relatively insignificant amount of the petrol/energy we currently consume.

One of the thorniest issues regarding weaning the global economy off oil usage is that petrol itself is only part of the equation. From a barrel of oil, petrol is only one of many by-products. In the unlikely (IMO impossible) event we rapidly find an energy source which can replace petrol, what happens to all the other derivatives we get from a barrel of oil? From a barrel of oil, the part which pays most of the exploration, extraction, refining, transport and retailing, is petrol - much of which is courtesy of individual motorists. The rest is priced almost at the waste product level. The repercussions of forcing corporations which currently benefit from the low cost of non-petrol oil derivatives to pay the full and genuine cost of getting a barrel of oil to market would bankrupt them - the alternative is to pass the massive cost increase which would keep them viable directly to consumers.

The massive cost rise to the manufacture of all plastics derived from oil by-products - which are everywhere in cheap abundance - alone would devastate the world economy. Imagine paying similar for the plastic container as you do for what it contains. Imagine paying many times the amount for nylon goods than you currently would for an expensive fibre like angora. At the same time, the costs for a product like cotton rise exorbitantly because of the massive artificial (oil derived) inputs needed. Imagine your property rates skyrocketing just to patch existing roads - let alone build new ones. Already councils all over the world are moaning about the recent increase in road building/repairing cost - and that's with motorists paying the bulk of the genuine cost of a barrel of oil at the fuel pump.

What can replace plastics, artificial fibres, bitumen etc at a relatively similar cost? Nothing.

So it's not just a case of weaning the world off petrol - the entire global economy (especially transport and food production) is constructed around a barrel of oil and its various derivatives.

The underlying equation with all forms of energy is EROEI - Energy Returned On Energy Invested.

The bald truth is that all forms of energy except fossil fuels, have a negative EROEI.

All forms of energy currently touted as alternatives to oil, have their true cost hidden. Just like nuclear, ethanol proponents and all other forms of 'alternative energy' - bar solar pholtovaic, wind and solar geo-thermal - fail to account for half the true equation. It's easy to discount the whole energy cost of getting the product to the factory/plant then retailing it, but it's not honest. In every case, vested interests are the ones taken care of - not the public.

Even geo-thermal solar - which is by far our best bet - isn't going to replace a billion (global) petrol derived vehicles and the enormous infrastructure which supports them. But more crucially, it won't protect the corporations, markets, hedge funds, shareholders and the general global economy from the fallout which conversion would cause.

The only sensible, realistic courses of action for society are relocalisation, powerdown and a total economic reconstruction.

The above involves a dramatic shift towards local, small scale, low input food production, sustainable local energy systems, local goods manufacturing, cutting energy and ending our obsession with unsustainable, zero-production suburban sprawl supported by equally unsustainable remote rural production. Such a shift would require enormous investment, coordination and organisation. None of it will turn a quick buck for investors or corporations and it won't be politically easy to sell or (for many) even understand.

The alternative is to walk into a permanent depression era which will eventually make the Great Depression look like a celebration of abundance. Cheap energy and wartime production based on cheap energy pulled us out of all past recessions including the Great Depression - nothing can pull us out of global recession once the age of cheap energy is over (literally now or very soon).

Politicians and corporations have either chosen to blithely ignore reality in preference for easy lies, or if truly informed, steeled themselves to continue flogging the dying horse until it nose dives into the dust carrying the majority of humanity on its back.

As much as I'd love to take the 'she'll be right' line, offer rational alternatives and be positive about our future with regard to energy, the truth is, the more you look in scientifically informed detail, the more it dawns on you that we are staring an imminent global collapse right in the face due to energy demand outstripping supply. At a societal level, we are not even remotely prepared or informed.

Individuals outside the present power structure are not going to change things politically or at a societal level. All the individual can do is make sure they carry as little debt as possible (much preferably none), live in a relatively low population density area and can provide for themselves something of the basics of life - food and energy production - without being totally reliant on government or wider society. Having money in the bank won't help - you can't eat money, it won't power your energy needs, and besides, if everyone asked for their savings, superannuation etc tomorrow, the whole paper money financial house of cards would collapse.

There's many more things I could add which would make this post many times longer, but that's it in a nutshell. Goes far beyond the scope of your question I know Michael, but these things and many more are all inter-related.

 

[Michael]

Rayzor
Just popped out to plant some vegies and pump up the tyres on my Bike.

Good point you make about industries that are dependant on polymers.

Will solar, geo thermal, wind be at the stage where their EROEI is positive?

 

[eight ace]

Chelsea, you may have attached a question mark but you were not asking me anything. What you were doing was using a rhetorical device, and I responded accordingly. Obviously I don't know you and don't claim to. I said you weren't qualified to tell me what I was saying. I don't need to know you to comfortably make that assertion.

I don't have any 'thing' as you put it, about the RAAF. I take the *smile* out of it, that's all. Someone who had the Navy as part of their life would probably have realised that.

 

[Rayzorwire]

Rayzor
Just popped out to plant some vegies and pump up the tyres on my Bike.

Will solar, geo thermal, wind be at the stage where their EROEI is positive?

Solar pholtovaic (even with the old style panels) is already EROEI positive for individuals/families. EROEI positivity will improve markedly with more sophisticated technologies and upscaling the manufacturing process - as the founders of Google and others they have joined with are currently beginning to do in Silicon Valley - the factory they are building will virtually print the 'panels' like newspapers. Their efforts will quite probably make pholtovaic much more readily available and cheaper.

Wind power is also already EROEI positive for the individual/family.

The rub with both technologies is the length of time it takes to recoup the cost of the purchase, energy embedded in manufacturing, materials, retailing, transport etc - can be up to 25yrs depending on the system, though with others it is less. It's a long 'break even' time for private investors, which is why uptake is only at reasonable levels (commercially and individually) in countries where government funded subsidies make them a more attractive investment.

Another thing to consider is that both technologies are reliant on oil (and in some cases, other increasingly scarce materials like silicon) to some degree as part of manufacturing and bringing them to market...as the cost of oil rises, so do all other material/manufacturing costs and other embedded costs. Bit of a double edged sword really.

Geo-thermal will certainly be EROEI positive, to what level would depend on the scale of required investment in infrastructure to bring it about, embedded maintenance costs etc - but it's a promising technology even now. And of course, we're only talking about our present level of electricity use - not powering our transport system or anything else.

 

[Liverpool]

And are the Labor Government at the time answerable for this decision?

Pretty much backs-up what PoppaX was saying a page or two earlier in the thread about the White Australia Policy, and the agenda of the Labor Governments over the years regarding immigration.


Immigration advice ignored

What did Keating know about Hilali, and when did he know it?

October 30, 2006

ONE of the most important questions to arise from the controversy surrounding Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali is a simple one: how did he get here and why was he allowed to stay?

The answer, it turns out is Paul Keating and the NSW Labor Right.

From the moment Sheik Hilali came to the attention of the authorities, the former treasurer and prime minister has been a very powerful friend to a man with some very bizarre ideas. The sheik's remarks on women, reported by this newspaper on Thursday, were not unique.

The man held up as the spiritual leader of Australia's 300,000 Muslims has a two-decade history of making outrageous and inflammatory speeches attacking women and Jews and endorsing terrorism and suicide bombing.

Twenty years ago Sheik Hilali had to apologise after he was quoted as saying, "the two cheapest things in Australia are the flesh of a woman and the meat of a pig".

Chris Hurford, immigration minister in the Hawke Labor government, tried to have the cleric deported in 1986 for these remarks and others. What's more, Australia's intelligence services knew that before he left Egypt for Australia, Sheik Hilali had been a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, an extremist organisation largely influenced by the writings of Sayyid Qutb, whose theological justifications of violence have been heavily borrowed by al-Qa'ida and other modern international Islamic terrorist groups.

But none of this appeared to trouble Mr Keating or powerful ALP backbencher Leo McLeay. The two men held the neighbouring seats of Blaxland and Grayndler, both heavily populated with Lebanese Muslims, and went in to bat for the sheik. Neither wanted to risk alienating that community, and they pressured the Immigration Department to ignore the body of evidence revealing Sheik Hilali as poisonous to our healthy body politic. And they were backed by a NSW Labor Party heading into an election in 1988 and looking for votes in western Sydney.

Indeed Mr Keating engineered the elevation of Sheik Hilali to the leadership of the Muslim community to ensure Labor would have a leader it could deal with. And when he was acting prime minister while Bob Hawke was away in 1990, Mr Keating personally approved Sheik Hilali's residency.

Chris Hurford was moved from his portfolio of immigration, and Bill McKinnon, who headed the department at the time, lost his job. So far Mr Keating has been uncharacteristically silent on his role in helping Sheik Hilali to stay in the country. But this saga is yet another blot on the record on immigration policy of the ALP, which from before the time of Arthur Calwell and the White Australia policy has a sorry history of putting special interests before the national interest.

While the politics that led to Mr Keating's support for Sheik Hilali may seem cynical and grubby, these events took place at a time when multiculturalism and tolerance were all the rage.
Few questioned the wisdom of letting ethnic communities self-segregate, creating a process that two decades later has damaged national cohesion and weakened the bond of our shared values.

At the tailend of the Cold War, those who warned of the dangers of ethnic separatism and the more specific threat of political Islam to Western societies were voices in the wilderness. Back then, tolerance was all that mattered. And for the federal ALP and the NSW Right, if it could garner votes and secure seats, all the better.

Mr Keating and the ALP used divisive multicultural politics for short-term political gain at a cost to the long-term health of the nation. Today Australia is reaping the fruits of that electoral cynicism.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20667175-601,00.html

 

[RemoteTiger]

Liverpool - that proves that the ALP is no better than what John Howard is doing now - they like him divided the elctorate to suit themselves to conqueor that same electorate at the ballot box.

Is this a flaw in our democracy?

Is it a flaw in two-party system? - where winning or maintaining power is more important than what is good for the nation!

IMO what Australia needs right now is a leader who stands up for the nation first and his/her political party second - unfortunately the machinery of government does not allow this. And Australian political history is littered with leaders who tried to do this but were ousted by their own party - John Gorton (over the nationalising of Banks - he finished up voting himself out because of the divide it caused within the Liberal Party which could have cost it Government) - Simon Crean (Tried to decrease the Labor Party's reliance on Unions - this was seen as turning your back on the grass roots of the party and Beasley's hench men made sure everything Crean tried to introduce as a Labor leader was squashed - they eventually got him and he was replaced by Mark Latham a "fall-guy" for the train wreck of an election that was looming thus leaving a Labor Party Leadership vacuum for big Kim to walk back into. IMO the Australia would have been a better place had Crean been successful - but traditionalists had to put the party/unions first)

We as a people of a nation lose - because for the political parties it is all about power - how to spin it through a bias press to hoodwink the voter to vote for you! Meanwhile the nation continues to struggle through its existence never realising its true abilities.

Little Johnny is just as bad as morgue assistant Paul who was just as bad as flashy Bob who was up to the same tricks as farmer Mal.

Don't we as a people of what should be a great nation deserve better from our leaders - from our Governments - from our political parties?

 

[tigersnake]

Very good post on the power issue Razor, very interesting. On the cheap gas exports issue, a monster LNG gas project on the North West shelf worth $5 billion p.a. yes, that’s $5 billion, is about to be approved and all production is going to Japan and Korea.

That’s s side issue. As I posted earlier on this thread, and you explained well, Nuclear power isn’t clean or cheap.

Dunno if anyone saw the fed Environment Minister interviewed by Tony Jones on Lateline last week about the proposed Vic Solar station. It was an amazing interview. Jones had done his research and the Minister was talking it up. Anyway, Jones, in a totally matter-of-fact and non-smartarse way, said, something like ‘well if its so good, why don’t we build 150 of these (the amount needed to power most of Aus), and forget nuclear, it will be cheaper and cleaner’.

The Minster was taken completely off guard, he was stammering and mumbling something about how bad Labor were on a separate issue. Then he asked him again, then again. Makes you think, maybe not Poppa, but makes me think anyway.

Like I said earlier, if it costs roughly $10-20K for enough solar panels to easily power a normal house, how many houses could you power with solar before you reached the cost of a nuclear plant? And even if the nuclear is cheaper, although it seems it isn’t, the cost of pollution would make it worth going solar anyway.

Seems to me the sensible thing would be to phase out dirty coal and move to clean solar. Not move from one dirty fuel to another.

 

[poppa x]

Makes you think, maybe not Poppa, but makes me think anyway.

Like I said earlier,  if it costs roughly $10-20K for enough solar panels to easily power a normal house, how many houses could you power with solar before you reached the cost of a nuclear plant?  And even if the nuclear is cheaper, although it seems it isn’t, the cost of pollution would make it worth going solar anyway.

I don't think?

Well lemme do some sums.  If $20k (your figure not mine) of solar panels powers a house and there are 8,000,000 households in Australia then it would cost $160,000,000,000 to convert to solar power.
BUT Industry accounts for more than half the power needs so let's double it and call it $320,000,000,000.  That's $320 BILLION and it only accounts for current needs - not future growth.
Now I don't have to point out to smart people like yourself that 320 billion is a lotta loot.

 

[Anduril]

It was the Liberal govt who gave the Sheik a visa in the first place, allowed him entry into Australia. So all are to blame.

 

[poppa x]

It was the Liberal govt who gave the Sheik a visa in the first place, allowed him entry into Australia. So all are to blame.

However, the Liberals were taken out of context.

 

[tigersnake]

Makes you think, maybe not Poppa, but makes me think anyway.

Like I said earlier,  if it costs roughly $10-20K for enough solar panels to easily power a normal house, how many houses could you power with solar before you reached the cost of a nuclear plant?  And even if the nuclear is cheaper, although it seems it isn’t, the cost of pollution would make it worth going solar anyway.

I don't think?

Well lemme do some sums.  If $20k (your figure not mine) of solar panels powers a house and there are 8,000,000 households in Australia then it would cost $160,000,000,000 to convert to solar power.
BUT Industry accounts for more than half the power needs so let's double it and call it $320,000,000,000.  That's $320 BILLION and it only accounts for current needs - not future growth.
Now I don't have to point out to smart people like yourself that 320 billion is a lotta loot.

I wasn't saying you don't think, I was saying Razors post didn't seem to make you think. You just ignored it.

I take your sums on board, yes it is a lot of loot. But lets look at it another way. Say its $10K. Apparently if it isn't already it will be soon, many say even lower. Also, the 8 million households wouldn't all need $10K worth of solar panel, a block of flats might need $20Ks worth for 8-10 households for instance. Also, coal will be phased out pretty slow, so as the implications of greenhouse sinks in and solar panel technology is developed to be cheaper and more effisient, it will keep coming down.

Also for necessity of base load power requirements there still will be a few big power stations you'd think, LNG perhaps. But the bare minimum.


So, considering all that, I can envisage the cost being $50-$100 billion. Not a lot when considering the benefits, you get environmental AND financial benefits remember, and that it would happen relatively slowly over a number of years, decades even.

To be honest I don't know what a nuclear plant would cost, my guess would be $5-10 billion. Your average LNG project these days costs $10 billion (Woodside and Inpex proposed projects).

 

[tigersnake]

As for the Mufti, the issue of who let him in is a bit of a distraction. Probably shouldn't have happened but it happened way before s.11. Liberal and Labor Governments allowed scores of Nazi War crims into the country.

Issue is what happens now, sack him.

 

[poppa x]

I wasn't saying you don't think, I was saying Razors post didn't seem to make you think.  You just ignored it.

I find Razors posts contain far too many words.  I am a busy man with a business to run and I will only respond to shortish comments.  I don't have all day to read Razors many points of view. Sorry but that's the way things have to be. And you should not assume that Razor has "won" the debate because I and others don't respond. We lack the time.

 

[tigersnake]

I wasn't saying you don't think, I was saying Razors post didn't seem to make you think.  You just ignored it.

I find Razors posts contain far too many words.  I am a busy man with a business to run and I will only respond to shortish comments.  I don't have all day to read Razors many points of view. Sorry but that's the way things have to be.  And you should not assume that Razor has "won" the debate because I and others don't respond.  We lack the time.

That explains a lot.  Fair enough, your busy and run a business, I hope you make a decent quid in it.  BUT, if you don't know a lot about an issue you shouldn't go off half cocked as if you do.   Razor obviously knows a bit about it, if you have'nt got time to read the info, don't dismiss it.

This is the cause of many of the worlds problems.  Most issues are very complex, people don't have the time to fully wiegh up whats involved.  Big bisiness and governments often use this ignorance to justify lazy inaction and protection of vested interests, as has occurred in the last decade of misinformation and inaction on the greenhouse issue, to name just one.

The evening news is 3 minutes of politics, 3 minutes of celebrities, 5 minutes of sport, 3 minutes of weather and the rest is ads.
If you don't know much about an issue, either spend some time and do some reading, or refrain from mouthing off.

 

[poppa x]

I wasn't saying you don't think, I was saying Razors post didn't seem to make you think.  You just ignored it.

I find Razors posts contain far too many words.  I am a busy man with a business to run and I will only respond to shortish comments.  I don't have all day to read Razors many points of view. Sorry but that's the way things have to be.  And you should not assume that Razor has "won" the debate because I and others don't respond.  We lack the time.

That explains a lot.  Fair enough, your busy and run a business, I hope you make a decent quid in it.  BUT, if you don't know a lot about an issue you shouldn't go off half cocked as if you do.   Razor obviously knows a bit about it, if you have'nt got time to read the info, don't dismiss it.

This is the cause of many of the worlds problems.  Most issues are very complex, people don't have the time to fully wiegh up whats involved.  Big bisiness and governments often use this ignorance to justify lazy inaction and protection of vested interests, as has occurred in the last decade of misinformation and inaction on the greenhouse issue, to name just one.

The evening news is 3 minutes of politics, 3 minutes of celebrities, 5 minutes of sport, 3 minutes of weather and the rest is ads.
If you don't know much about an issue, either spend some time and do some reading, or refrain from mouthing off.

And the problem with the world is that simple minded buffoons (usually greenies) with too much time on the hands create lengthy ramblings that we are expected to believe simply because we don't have the time to argue.

So Razor is 100% right and I'm wrong because I'm busy and he's not?  Getta grip.

 

[tigersnake]

[Deleted] Thats not what I said.  You always seem to mis-read my posts and extrapolate a wrong meaning.

On the face of it, because you haven't provided any evidence to the contrary, you've just swallowed Howards line that "Nuclear power is clean and green and the answer to all our problems'.

Myself, and Razor haven't.  I know a bit, Razor obviously knows more.

As for the 'Greenies with too much time' comment, ludicrous, and showing your true colours.

These 'greenies' I'm talking about are actually scientists.  They get paid to do a job and work hard just like you do, but because they have findings you don't agree with you dismiss them as not being legitimate.  To dismiss the vast majority of the worlds science community who say we have some serious problems, just 'cos you don't agree with what they find is beyond the pale.  I'm sure if some scientists found a cure for cancer you wouldn't say 'bloody poindexters with too much time on their hands', then.

 

[poppa x]

Deleted

I've had enough. You're personal abuse has gone on long enough.

I've used the report to moderator button

 

[tigersnake]

OK sorry about the deleted comment poppa x, but read the bloody posts before you go off half cocked, it drives me nuts.